Why are endocrine-disrupting antibacterials still on the shelves?

We have covered the health risks of the antibacterial ingredient triclosan on this blog before. The ubiquitous ingredient, says the FDA, doesn’t offer any more germ protection than do simple soap and water. On the down side, it is an endocrine disruptor that affects thyroid function and has been linked to allergies, asthma, eczema and antibiotic resistance. (Triclosan also persists in water supplies, threatening wildlife.)

An ongoing lawsuit is shedding light on the absurd ineffectiveness of our regulatory process in addressing the chemical.

The FDA first considered regulating triclosan in 1978, proposing a ban on the stuff in hospital scrubs and hand soaps within a couple of years. In 1994, the agency made similar rumblings but again failed to act.

The Natural Resources Defense Council filed suit last summer in an attempt to force the FDA to act. In apparent response to the pressure, the FDA said it would release its findings on the chemical — research it began in 1972 — in the spring of this year. It’s now late summer, and the agency has changed the deadline to winter 2012.

Meanwhile, Americans are using the stuff by the ton. A survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found triclosan in the urine of 75 percent of Americans over the age of 5.

Sarah Janssen of NRDC, told the New York Times, “A lot of people mistakenly believe that if they buy something with a chemical in it that is antibacterial that it’s a plus. I think the marketing of these far outweighs the statements on F.D.A.’s Web site, which most people don’t even go to.”

Industry pressure is certainly part of the equation. Antibacterial products account for half of the $750 million market for liquid hand soaps in the U.S. The industry front group American Cleaning Institute (formerly the Soap and Detergent Association) has launched a website defending triclosan, called Fight Germs Now.

The business lobby has garnered support from several small-government conservative groups, as reported by Mother Jones‘ Kiera Butler. The conservative blogs Big Government and the Weekly Standard have mocked environmentalists for drumming up fears about triclosan. (Say it’s only a tiny bit scary but no safer than soap: It’s still a good candidate for some form of regulation.)

Remember that statistic about the urine? Well, the right-leaning group, Americans for Tax Reform, has an interesting take on it, claiming that “research shows … nearly three-quarters of Americans” use triclosan. They go on to say:

Clearly moving to eliminate a product used by almost 75 percent of Americans should be based on evidence stronger than speculation. None exists, and research clearly shows Americans would prefer being free to choose these products rather than being restricted by regulatory caprice.

What a dense little cache of irony! The group alludes to Americans’ freedom of choice as a rationale for its pro-business stance. But wouldn’t a costs/benefits labeling requirement facilitate informed consumer choice? The group also alludes to a dearth of evidence on triclosan, pointing, in effect, to the FDA’s industry-influenced failure to release its findings; the agency’s 30 years of trying to regulate triclosan are dismissed as “caprice.”

Companies have had 30 years to move toward safer ingredients — indeed, Colgate-Palmolive just swapped triclosan out for the natural ingredient lactic acid in its antibacterial dish detergent. Would pushing them to do so really be the nanny state the populist-posing pro-business groups claim?